Protecting supply management a key provincial position at federal agriculture meeting

© AgMedia Inc.

Description (Tag): 

Comments

Well here we have it . A meeting with 28 ag groups and not one word about the desolving of SM from pork who has a supported and passed policy . Did the vote not happen ? Why do they not stand up for their members wishes ?

They are too busy cashing their big cheques,same with the beef guys.

let the insults begin!!!!!!!

The three verities in Canadian agriculture are death, taxes, and support for supply management regardless of the adverse economic and public policy consequences thereof.

Every Ontario ag Minister loudly proclaims the economic superiority of the supply management model in spite of them all having learned in Intro Ag Econ (assuming, of course, they ever got that far academically) that it is one of the worst economic models ever designed for agriculture if, for no other reason than because it is net-negative for jobs and economic activity.

Particularly galling, and particularly asinine, therefore, at this meeting was the oxymoronic statement, made by Ontario Ag Minister Leal, that he supports supply management (which is net negative for jobs and economic activity) while at the same time supporting his government's goal of creating 120,000 new jobs in, and doubling the size of, the agri-food industry.

Come on, really, Mr. Leal, you can have supply management or you can have new jobs and growth, but, particularly in the dairy sector with price-induced declining primary demand, you can't have both - unfortunately, too many farmers seem to want to continue to believe the type of nonsense coming from Leal. Too bad for us all!

Setphen Thompson, Clinton ON

Man this new Minister is thick....why do you think supply management is on the chopping block to begin with?? Except for providing an easy living for a chosen few, the system is costing the rest of agriculture and Canada tremendous amounts of potential trade and economic betterment with the world. Leave it to the members of supply management to want to sleep in the same bed as the political party that has left this province bankrupt.....(ask a SM member who they voted for in the last election v.s. the election before)
The farmer that has to compete on the world stage gets zero support in this Province and will eventually have his or her farm taken over by the dairy or feather guy next door. And that same dairy or feather farmer has no problem at all lobbying for closed borders with one hand to protect the income he needs to roll over the neighbour while grabbing any program or selling cash crop with the other. Very sad.

What potential trade? what so-called economic betterment? The non-supply management cronies whine and complain about more trade opportunities but they couldn't even fill the trade quota's they have in place.Why was the CETA deal ever hatched when we weren't even close to filling the Beef and Pork quota's we already had with the UE ?
Of course the Agristability program isen't working because even at times of record high prices in Beef and Pork the money is not enough,it will never be enough!! That's why Supply management looks so good to politicians, because the other non-SM sectors are one big money drain.The Feds poured millions into Quality meats only so it could close its doors months later.

Of course Supply management is on the chopping block,just like it was back in the early 90's and I fully expect it will be on the so-called chopping block 20+ years from now as well because some people believe that trading off SM is the only way they can move ahead,its the same myth that putting enough money in agristability will be a cure all.

Unless Leal is talking about increased "live" exports to the US,l don't see how we create so many new jobs without dramaticaly increasing our processing and manufacturing sectors in this Province.We have been going the opposite direction on those fronts the last few years.
If we are to continue down the green-energy road, we have to adopt something like Germany, who have some of the highest hydro rates in the world but give their manufacturing sectors discounts.

The problem is that we have to subsidize every thing to death . If we didn't have subsidized hydro ( Greed Energy ) we would not have to think about giving discounts to keep businesses and jobs . Sounds like you are of the same thinking as the OFA who is all for green energy but silently not for wind turbines but now wants an industrial rate for agriculture subsidized by every one else who pays a hydro bill .

Minister Leal might think it is the best thing since sliced bread and that it does not cost gov anything but does it hurt other commodities when it comes to global trade negotiations is the real question that needs to be asked . Has there been a study done to prove that it doesn't ?

Supply Management is Federal juristriction . Minister Leal can only deal with it on a provincial or inter provincial trade basis .

I am not anti SM but I should not be limited or held back by an other group in the Ag sector .

That protectionist systems like supply management are net-negative has been proven, time and time again, ever since the repeal of the Corn Laws in 1840's England.

Therefore, we don't need any more "studies" to demonstrate that supply management hurts everyone, even the credibility of the politicians who keep blindly claiming to support it.

I must also point out that the above poster can't have it both ways either - while he/she claims to not oppose supply management, he/she, by definition, opposes supply management by expressing the belief that he/she should not be limited or held back by another group in the Ag Sector.

It's this continuing belief in the fairy-tale that supply management is all benefit and no cost which is making the farm community, and the politicians who pander to supply management, look like fools and/or imbeciles.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

I am not asking to have it both ways . I think there needs to be a complete study done and not hearsay from just the anti on this forum . Trade is a very complex thing and I think yes in the past other ag sectors and maybe even othe business sectors from Canada have been hurt by the save SM at any cost . The one thing that SM has proved is that food here can not be produced as cheap as it is in other parts of North America or the world for that fact . Other countries do provide support to agriculture that every one but SM has to compete with in this country . Basically I as a non SM farmer am supporting SM at my cost because of one sided trade deals and for the protection of one ag sector . I want the studies done and the truth revealed .

AS far as SM as a system it needs a total overhaul . There are too few controlling the sector and for a young farmer to start and compete it is so one sided that it is not viable .

I am all for competing on a level playing field and ethanol policy is and does exist in the USA so we are on a level playing field there . What we need here now is a US style of farm support for agriculture . RMP was not trade distorting before some one got the bright idea that all non SM sectors needed to be included in the program .

I'm sorry, but there's no need for any more studies - that protectionist systems such as supply management are bad economic and public policy, has been a no-brainer for 150 years.

To anyone with even the most-fundamental grasp of economic principles, you are asking for yet another study to prove that water doesn't run uphill, and that, without being patronizing, is the stark truth of the matter.

And, I'm sorry, but you're also either an anonymous fool, or an imposter, for claiming that you're willing to face the financial bullying supply management imposes on you and your farm - no rational person could be that gullible and/or that obtuse.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

Unsigned comment deleted by editor

Ah yes, the "by definition" ruse.

I agree, some people are Indeed fools and/or imbeciles.

When someone claims to not oppose supply management, yet in almost the same breath claims he/she "should not be limited or held back by another group in the Ag sector", these are contradictory, and just-plain imbecilic, claims of the highest order.

What part of supply management's definitional ability to use the bullying power of 200% tariff barriers to "limit" and/or "hold back" non-supply managed farmers does this anonymous poster not understand?

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

Post new comment

To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
Image CAPTCHA
We welcome thoughtful comments and ideas. Comments must be on topic. Cheap shots, unsubstantiated allegations, anonymous attacks or negativity directed against people and organizations will not be published. Comments are modified or deleted at the discretion of the editors. If you wish to be identified by name, which will give your opinion far more weight and provide a far greater chance of being published, leave a telephone number so that identity can be confirmed. The number will not be published.